Disposed¶24

Ram Niwas Jat v. Shri Govind Mohan and Ors.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2025CONT.CAS(C)/251/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

contempt petition; CONT.CAS(C) 251/2025; wilful disobedience; non-compliance with Division Bench directions; W.P.(C) 5880/2019; order dated 30.09.2024; reinstatement with consequential benefits; arrears of salary; seniority; CFSL report; Plea of Guilt signatures; undertaking by respondent counsel; six weeks; disposed of as not pressed; liberty to revive contempt petition; Delhi High Court; ManoJ Jain, J.; BSF respondents.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again and revive the contempt petition if the consequential benefits are not passed within the six-week period undertaken by the respondents. ¶24

Ram Niwas Jat Vs Shri Govind Mohan and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the specific directions in the Division Bench order dated 30.09.2024 in W.P.(C) 5880/2019 (reinstatement with consequential benefits within four weeks), warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

In view of the respondents' undertaking, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the contempt petition at the moment, and the petition was disposed of as not pressed.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that all consequential benefits shall be passed to the petitioner within a period of six weeks, and the Court took such statement and assurance on record.

¶20

Key takeaways

Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Court again and revive the present contempt petition in case nothing is done within the time undertaken by the respondents.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.) disposed of a contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 251/2025) alleging wilful disobedience of the Division Bench order dated 30.09.2024 in W.P.(C) 5880/2019, by which the Impugned Orders dated 30.07.2018 and 05.02.2019 were quashed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with full consequential benefits within four weeks. The petitioner, though reinstated, had not been provided consequential benefits including arrears of salary and seniority. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, undertook that all consequential benefits would be passed to the petitioner within six weeks; the statement and assurance was taken on record. The petition was disposed of as not pressed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to revive the contempt petition in case of non-compliance within the time undertaken.

¶1

$~93

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 251/2025 RAM NIWAS JAT

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

SHRI GOVIND MOHAN AND ORS

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Nirvirkar Verma, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, G.P. and Ms. Hemendra, Commandant, BSF.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 18.02.2025

¶11

The Petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience of the specific directions contained in order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 5880/2019.

¶12

The relevant part of the above said order reads as under:-

¶13

“3. Today, the learned counsel for the respondents submits, on instructions, that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, within a period of four weeks from today. He further informs the Court that on the plea of the petitioner that he had not signed the Plea of Guilt, the Director General has also directed that the signatures be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short, 'CFSL') for its report.

¶14

4. We expect that on receipt of the report from the CFSL, appropriate action shall be taken thereon.

¶15

5. In view of the above developments, the Impugned Orders dated 30.07.2018 and 05.02.2019 are hereby quashed. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner with full consequential benefits within a period of four weeks from today. The respondents shall also take appropriate action based on the report received from the CFSL.”

¶16

CONT.CAS(C) 251/2025 1

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2025 at 12:08:44

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has though been reinstated but he has yet not been provided the consequential benefits including arrears of salary and seniority etc.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent appears on advance notice and submits that the matter is under active consideration and since the service book of the petitioner had been sent to CFSL, there was some delay in releasing the arrears.

¶20

However, learned counsel for respondent, on instructions, submits that all such consequential benefits shall be passed to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today.

¶21

Such statement and assurance is taken on record.

¶22

In view of the above, learned counsel for petitioner, at the moment, does not press the contempt petition. He, however, seeks liberty to approach this Court again and to revive the present contempt petition, in case, nothing is done within the time as undertaken above.

¶23

Petition is, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed.

¶24

Liberty, as prayed, is granted.

¶25

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 18, 2025/ss

¶27

CONT.CAS(C) 251/2025 2

¶28

Ram Niwas Jat v. Shri Govind Mohan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas Jat v. Shri Govind Mohan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhan Singh Vs Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs the Commissioner , MCD and Anr.

Shaqib Vs Shri. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Janhit Sewa Samiti(Regd.) through Its President Vs Vijay Kumar Singh and Ors.

Jai Kishan Khanna Deceased through His Lr Vs Registrar of Delhi Cooperative Societes & Anr.

Ex Asi/Gd Kundan Singh Vs Shri Govind Mohan & Ors.

Mr. Jatin Mittal Vs Sh. Rajni Kant Agrawal, Cmd M/S Wapcos Ltd.

Surinder Singh Vs Pramod Rai

Lakhan Singh Vs Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs the Commissioner , MCD and Anr.

Shaqib Vs Shri. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Mr. Kolekar Ankush Babu Vs Mr. Rajwinder Singh Bhatti & Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sng Hospitality Private Limited Vs Idfc First Bank & Anr.